Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 393 (TS)

Balide Anjaiah v. State of Telangana

2025-04-23

JUVVADI SRIDEVI

body2025
ORDER : (JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J.) This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 6 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.1067 of 2022 on the file of X Additional Metropolitan Magistrate-cum-Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘ IPC ’) and sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (for short ‘the Act’). 02. Heard Sri A.Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 6, Sri V.Ganesh, learned counsel representing on behalf of Mr.V.M.Krishna Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and Smt.S.Madhavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State. Perused the record. 03. In brief, the case of the prosecution is that the marriage of the accused No.1 with the respondent No.2 was solemnized about nine years ago. Respondent No.2 was working as a software consultant in USA and at the insistence of the family members of her husband, 2 nd respondent remained as housewife. It is alleged that her husband and in laws have demanded to bring additional dowry and that the 5 th petitioner herein went to the house of parents of defacto complainant and asked for Rs.1 Crore to repay loan but they expressed their inability, which resulted in tensions in the family of the 2 nd respondent. 2 nd respondent gave birth to a baby boy on 26.04.2019 and her parents arrived to USA to assist her, and when they wanted to take her back to India, her husband and in laws picked up a quarrel and stated that if she was allowed to go to India, she has to stay at Mumbai. She stayed there for a month and her in laws ill treated her and humiliated on the ground that her parents did not help in repaying the loan amount. Later her husband sent notice to her asking her to come back to USA along with child but on the pretext that 2 nd respondent made unreasonable demands he did not arrange for dependent VISA but asked her to come on visiting VISA. Thus, the petitioners alleged to have conspired to destroy her marital life. Hence, the respondent No.2 filed the present case for the offences under Sections 498-A of IPC and sections 3 and 4 of the Act. 04. Thus, the petitioners alleged to have conspired to destroy her marital life. Hence, the respondent No.2 filed the present case for the offences under Sections 498-A of IPC and sections 3 and 4 of the Act. 04. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that the petitioners are nothing to do with the alleged offences and that they never harassed the respondent No.2. It is submitted that the petitioners did not demand the 2 nd respondent for payment of additional dowry from her parents. But the 2 nd respondent herself demanded her husband to stop sending any amounts to his parents and also made some other unreasonable demands. Except sending of amounts by accused No.1 to his parents, there are no disputes between the husband and wife. Even according to the 2 nd respondent, the alleged offences said to have been taken place in USA and no part of offence has taken place in India. The petitioner-accused No.2 is the father, the petitioner- accused No.3 is the mother of the accused No.1, the petitioner- accused No.4 and 5 are brothers of the accused No.1 and the petitioner-accused No.6 is the sister in law of accused No.1 and they are residing in India separately from the petitioner-accused No.1 and respondent No.2. The petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 6 never interfered in the matrimonial issues of respondent No.2 and the accused No.1. The petitioners never demanded any dowry from respondent No.2 or from her parents. There are no specific allegations against the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 6. The contents of the complaint or charge sheet do not disclose the required ingredients to attract the offences under Sections 498-A of IPC and sections 3 and 4 of the Act. While seeking to quash the criminal proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 6, learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon a decision in Dara Lakshmi Narayana and others v. State of Telangana and another , [AIR 2025 SUPREME COURT 173] wherein the Honourable Supreme Court of India at Paragraph Nos.18, 24 and 25 held that: “ 18 . A bare perusal of the FIR shows that the allegations made by respondent No.2 are vague and omnibus. Other than claiming that appellant No.1 harassed her and that appellant Nos.2 to 6 instigated him to do so, respondent No.2 has not provided any specific details or described any particular instance of harassment. A bare perusal of the FIR shows that the allegations made by respondent No.2 are vague and omnibus. Other than claiming that appellant No.1 harassed her and that appellant Nos.2 to 6 instigated him to do so, respondent No.2 has not provided any specific details or described any particular instance of harassment. She has also not mentioned the time, date, place, or manner in which the alleged harassment occurred. Therefore, the FIR lacks concrete and precise allegations. 24. Insofar as appellant Nos.2 to 6 are concerned, we find that they have no connection to the matter at hand and have been dragged into the web of crime without any rhyme or reason. A perusal of the FIR would indicate that no substantial and specific allegations have been made against appellant Nos.2 to 6 other than stating that they used to instigate appellant No.1 for demanding more dowry. It is also an admitted fact that they never resided with the couple namely appellant No.1 and respondent No.2 and their children. Appellant Nos.2 and 3 resided together at Guntakal, Andhra Pradesh. Appellant Nos. 4 to 6 live in Nellore, Bengaluru and Guntur respectively. 25 . A mere reference to the names of family members in a criminal case arising out of a matrimonial dispute, without specific allegations indicating their active involvement should be nipped in the bud. It is a well-recognised fact, borne out of judicial experience, that there is often a tendency to implicate all the members of the husband’s family when domestic disputes arise out of a matrimonial discord. Such generalised and sweeping accusations unsupported by concrete evidence or particularised allegations cannot form the basis for criminal prosecution. Courts must exercise caution in such cases to prevent misuse of legal provisions and the legal process and avoid unnecessary harassment of innocent family members. In the present case, appellant Nos.2 to 6, who are the members of the family of appellant No.1 have been living in different cities and have not resided in the matrimonial house of appellant No.1 and respondent No.2 herein. Hence, they cannot be dragged into criminal prosecution and the same would be an abuse of the process of the law in the absence of specific allegations made against each of them.” 05. Hence, they cannot be dragged into criminal prosecution and the same would be an abuse of the process of the law in the absence of specific allegations made against each of them.” 05. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submitted that there are specific allegations against the petitioners and the truth or otherwise would come out only after conducting trial by the concerned Court and prayed to dismiss this Criminal Petition. 06. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State also prayed to dismiss this Criminal Petition. 07. A bare perusal of the contents of the complaint discloses that the after marriage of the accused No.1 and 2 nd respondent they left to USA after 10 days of marriage and were living there and the petitioners herein never lived with them at any instance and the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 6 were living in India separately from accused No.1 and respondent No.2. Therefore, it is clear that the petitioners- accused Nos.2 to 6 were residing separately from the accused No.1 and respondent No.2. 08. Except stating that there was a mental and physical harassment caused by the accused, there are no specific details or descriptive particulars of instances of harassment caused by the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 6. Such generalised and sweeping accusations unsupported by concrete evidence or particularised allegations cannot form basis for criminal prosecution. 09. Making vague and generalised allegations during matrimonial conflicts, if not scrutinized, will lead to the misuse of legal processes and an encouragement for use of arm twisting tactics by a wife and/or her family. Sometimes, recourse is taken to invoke Section 498A of the IPC against the husband and his family in order to seek compliance with the unreasonable demands of a wife. Therefore, the Courts are bound to ensure whether there is any prima facie case against the husband and his family members before prosecuting the husband and his family members. Hence, the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 6 cannot be dragged into criminal prosecution and the same would be an abuse of process of the law in the absence of specific allegations made against each of them. 10. Hence, the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 6 cannot be dragged into criminal prosecution and the same would be an abuse of process of the law in the absence of specific allegations made against each of them. 10. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case including the settled principle of law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court of India in the above decision, this Court is of the considered opinion that the continuation of the proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 6 amounts to abuse of process of law, therefore, the proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 6 are liable to be quashed. 11. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 6 in C.C.No.1067 of 2022 on the file of X Additional Metropolitan Magistrate-cum-Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, are hereby quashed. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.